Jump to content

Belaric

Member Since 07 Feb 2013
Offline Last Active Jun 20 2023 03:01

#878624 Fallen Sword Helper down 7/11/14?

Posted by Belaric on 12 July 2014 - 13:37

I am going to miss the guild inventory function. A LOT. But this morning FSH which has been getting twitchier, quit pretty much altogether on me.

 

I'm not going to go old school on greasemonkey.

 

To me this is becoming part of the game's genteel decay. I can live with it, but it is sad to see happening.

 

bry gives good advice. I'm not particularly prepared to risk my wider security for the sake of an old script that needs updating anyway. Should Yuuzhan choose to put the work in and fix it - awesome.

 

We have for a long time owed the creators of FSH  a huge debt. Now I think more of us will realise how big that debt is/was.

 

Did I say how awesome Guild inventory was? Losing it blows.




#877603 Arena Update #3

Posted by Belaric on 06 July 2014 - 16:29

Zorg, dude, pull up a chair!!

 

The long awaited arena updates have caused an uptick in interest (not by me to be honest) don't ruin it by causing increased interest and then leaving the job incomplete just to frustrate folks and cause them to lose interest again!

 

Zorg, Come On Down and make those Prices Right!! LOL! (Or BG if you are the price setter!)




#877602 Content Roadmap.

Posted by Belaric on 06 July 2014 - 16:24

I will note that last June to September we had a drop off in content that got so bad I thought I'd need to delevel to get gold for my guild.

 

I'm not saying that will happen again, and I know BG has been sick, I'm just noting the potential for a cyclical summer slow down.

 

Last year the lack of content was covered by extra cave and legendary and global events... which did me no good in terms of guild balance so I was acutely aware of lack of content. The events seemed to me a distraction from the absence of content.

 

Of course now we'd be happy for some cave action or a legendary. Or a global. And Quango may be on its way. Spring sprang and ran away - but hey - it might always be spring somewhere on Erildath! LOL!

 

Has content slowed in summers before last year? That would be an interesting I have no life bit of research to do.

 

And I think the quests are still to be inserted in 2101-2125.

 

Any way you look at it there is a backlog of stuff to be done. In terms of content and related events, let alone other things.




#875770 Arena Update v2.48

Posted by Belaric on 26 June 2014 - 01:58

Hey - at least they did the update on Wednesday and are responding to feedback - not a Friday afternoon special!!! How many of those have we been unhappy with in the past??/ LOLOLOL!

 

Maybe Zorg didn't get that memo (about Friday updates)! So yeah - it is an update with issues - almost every major one has those, but at least it is not a weekend long FUBAR.

 

Arena had no love for 2-3 YEARS. Its finally got some love - some clumsy doesn't know how to slow dance without stomping on your feet love, but love all the same. Maybe they'll learns some better steps tomorrow!

 

I do hope they introduce more level ranges as they had before - it is a crying shame to see so many set ups rendered obsolete and so many folk potentially denied a chance at being competitive.

 

For the rest - I have lurked and read, some folk took advantage. Has happened before. Will sadly happen again if the game lasts. Given the recent negativity and pessimism on these forums (which I have shared to the extent of just not bothering to post at all, as what was the point??) I am pleased to see so many people got woken up and stirred into action by this - maybe there is a community left after all! Just have to rile it up some! LOL!

 

I shall wait and see what happens tomorrow.




#862326 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 12 April 2014 - 15:07

These are my views... now that I finally have more time to actually read and post.. lol Thanks for taking the time, i appreciate it is not a small chunk!

*  You shouldn't be able to buy a de-levelling party when you post, by upping the payment. You can already get someone delevelled by organizing a delevelling party before you post and posting only when everyone is ready to hit. It works, all it requires is that you're a bit social and interact a bit with your friends, so they'll want to help you out. To pay for a delevelling party goes against every single thing I like about the game. That would be like forcing every bounty hunter to become a mercenary unwillingly. That WOULD make me quit bounty hunting. I'm nobody's mercenary. I do like helping friends though. VERY important difference there to me. I appreciate your feeling. CB means every delevel party will itself be delevelled in response. If the delevel partiers then manage to delevel everyone who helped delevel them (difficult, given the explosion in numbers of people involved), they will be counter bountied again. This goes on until one side is exhausted. I have said I think this ultimately drives people away from the BB. If you think it has not, Cool. We'll just have to disagree on why the BB is dead.

 

* The bounty board takes twice as much xp as the same kind of hit does ingame, so a 10 stam clear already takes 2 times as much xp on the BB as one 100 stam hit does "ingame". Big deal. PvP players have trumpeted how they don't care about their levels. You can regain them faster using the VL loophole. This quoted amount of XP loss is no disincentive to hitting ending up on the BB. In my opinion.

 

* If you want to bounty hunt, make sure you hit every 2 minutes. If you take 2 hours doing a bounty, you SHOULD get posted imho. (Someone mentioned that they were multi tasking, and took 2 hours to clear a bounty cuz of that, and they were upset about being counter bountied). A bounty is sort of like a date... don't go on a date unless you have time for your date, or he/she WILL get upset. Ah -rules for how to do it 'properly'. These are your customs and your arbitrary rules. And they quickly turn into your excuses for counter bountying. I am sorry - but I find them baseless. Anyone who has RL interfere unexpectedly gives reason to be CB'd in your example. Sometimes rainchecks have to happen, even mid-date. Unless they send a message to their target asking not to be CB'd? That kind of demonstrates the power dynamic that is wrong I think. The person on the board should not have more power than the people trying to hit them. Why? Because the person on the board chose to run the risk (I said the word - even if that current risk is very low) of being there by hitting someone first in game. They deserve to be there. CB gives you that power. You can create rationalisations for why you are justified for doing it, but none cover for the basic fact that CB is a huge advantage to your play style.

 

* If someone has already started a bounty, the "xp loss remaining" will in 99% of the cases no longer end in the number 50. It's always a good thing to check that before you start swinging. Ok.

 

* Don't take a bounty, and then stop if the person happens to get buffed up.LOL! Fair enough. And don't demand that they get rid of their gear for you to be able to clear them. LMAO! Agreed.AND don't walk away unless you made sure they are okay with it.Why? If they walk away you have defeated them, player versus player. Them walking away is proof of your victory. Unless of course they just hit you 9 times straight for a delevel. In which case - which circumstance is the correct one? Is it okay to walk away in one and not the other? I presume you support the idea of delevelling people, therefore you must accept that walking away after 9 is appropriate then as part of the strategy to drop the other guy 5? Your unwritten rules, as clearly shown there, lack consistency, and normally add up to one rule for you and your pals (when you delevel via CB for instance), another for everyone else when they try and fail to finish a bounty on you.This is the point I am making: Unwritten inconsistent rules are made just to favour one side and their own preset playing preferences. They are window dressing pure and simple. Thank you for helping me illustrate it again.    What I mean is.. if you are lvl 700 and someone at lvl 1900 is on the BB, and geared up, maybe you should wait for another bounty instead, unless you want to risk getting counter bountied if any of the stuff in this  section applied. Fine. But if you are a 1900 and a 700 gives up against you - what does CBing them for quitting prove? They were hopelessly overmatched anyway - how about some magnanimity in victory? Or are you teaching them a lesson to never bother trying to hit you again? In which case you may lose another player from the BH ranks, and your community shrinks some more.

 

* If you don't wanna risk getting counter bountied, don't bounty hunt. Not many do. Or even have the opportunity now. I wonder how that came about?  If you bounty someone for having done a swift 10 stam clear where the hitter hit every 2 minutes, and didn't give up just cuz he/she lost a few swings or got deflected a few times, then you'll most likely end up on a Wanted Targets list, and get 100 stam cleared by said player from then on. It's just that simple. More bountyboardese - your private unknown and unaccountable regulation system in action. Run for and by you. Great. I am for clarity and consistency - that is its antithesis. And look how that system has stimulated the BB! Oh - wait, it is dead.

 

There are sooo many ways you can hide your gold and protect your xp already, so why make the game even more risk free? I believe my ideas would have made it more risky. Depends on your view point and where you think the baseline of risk is now.

 

And yeah, it's a GAME... nothing to get all upset about.I agree. But games should have rules that allow everyone to compete on an even playing field. That does not exist on the BB, in my opinion. You (the Pvp community,) go silent in the face of my questions, and have done for the entire length of this thread, and I have repeated those questions almost daily for a week. I think we all play to get a bit of relaxation and fun, and to hang out with friends. Some only want to play safe and build up their character, and gain levels etc, and they already have all the tools to do so safely. It doesn't cost much to buy that upgrade.

 

It's impossible to buy an upgrade that makes deflect go away when you want to steal someone's gold, since antideflect really isn't all that efficient. It's impossible to steal all your gold unless the master thief enhancement kicks in, and it does so only on occasion. And, it's impossible to bounty you if you don't hit someone in the first place. If you want a risk free game, don't take risks. Don't carry gold around, and buy that xp protect upgrade or the xp lock upgrade. I agree on what the non-pvp side can and has done to reduce risk. And if nothing changes, those will be the tactics that continue to get used. Gold hits are a great example of the self-defeating nature of pvp in this game. You hit for gold, you steal it, your targets learn to hide the gold, you have lost gold income. You reduce your own income as a result of your initial success. So with the board. You defeat your enemies repeatedly, you punish BH for taking you on, you crush them with counter bounties, you bamboozled them with arcane rules around what is allowable behaviour on the board, and then you wonder why the board is empty and nobody bothers to play anymore - you have driven them out by your very dominance of the form. 

 

I refuse to play a game where interaction with other players isn't important, and this is the one thing where it is VERY important, in FS. Why make the game more antisocial, by removing the need to gather up hitters for a delevelling party? Hmm - we must disagree again - I think that my system would get more people to play. There is no reason you cannot interact with players on the Bb just because the Bh is immune. Delevel parties get counter bountied. Some people have found the cost too high, and that is their choice. Why do i say that? because the BB is dead.

 

Are you prepared to say you do not PvP anymore? If you do you are still hitting and not being bountied. if you are not being bountied it is because the BB is not functioning properly.

 

So, one last time. The board being dead makes these questions relevant.

 

What are PvP players doing in the game? If PvP is dead why do players and PvP guilds persist? Are you hitting or not? If you are hitting - where are the bounties? Could it be you are hitting and not being bountied? Why would that be I wonder? Could it be because the Bb is broken and is not functioning as it is supposed to. If you are not - what have you got to lose by changing the system?

 

NONE of you have ever had the nuts to answer those simple questions. Either you are defending an already dead system you are not participating in (why?), or you are still profiting from the dead BB and don't want to admit it. Unless you can provide a credible third option. Until you do your other answers on this subject are essentially meaningless as you are clearly conflicted and seeking to maintain your self interested advantage.

 

Mzz please understand not that is not a personal attack on you - it is aimed at your entire community. This is my last post on the subject. I do not expect an answer - your community representatives have had many days already to provide one, and have chosen repeatedly to ignore them. That to me, now says it all. The BB is a tool of the Pvp community and you like it how it is just fine. you have won the ability to control it in game and do not want to give up that advantage, even if it means fewer other players participate, because it means you can hit with relative impunity off the board. that is my belief. I have no proof. If I am wrong, and I might well be, and you are not really hitting which is why there are so few bounties, then where is the thrill of the pvp player's life in FS anyway? are you all just loggin in daily in the hope that something will be better, note nothing has changed, and log out again? If so - why do you all defend the status quo so doggedly?

 

No... 

 

- keep the need for socializing. Don't force every bounty hunter to become an unwilling mercenary. delevel parties do not equal socialising. you can talk and chat no matter what format the Bb takes. the hitter and the hit can still chat on the BB if things changed.

- remove deflect from the bounty board. that would speed things up and make them less boring. Deflect is not the reason the Bb is dead though - in my opinion.

- Leave the BB the way it is,sigh just remove the prestige gained on it, and remove the opt-in for the ladder. In short: If the ladder is no longer opt-in, and people gain their points smacking ingame, they shouldn't lose them on the bounty board. If the ladder is hopelessly broken I am open to its removal - and BG is looking at that. The old open system with rating was fine by me - I know the dominamce medal and trading hits for rating was a problem. The original abused medal!

 

 

 

Oh, and cookies... I like cookies. Especially chocolate chip cookies. Yum :)

 

Lost my trail of thought now.. anyway.... Thank you for reading :)

 

Thank you for giving me one last chance to state my case.

Okay folks. This is it for me. Davros this will be my last essay on this topic for you to enjoy.

 

Once again I asked Mzz and everyone else on this board the questions that have been repeatedly dodged. Only Maehdros answered them in the slightest and said it could be a combination of poor gold incentives and dwindling numbers (I'm going by memory). Could be true, but I would submit my theory has a lot more detail and shows how the BB could have depopulated itself, and demonstrated the mechanics by which that happened. It also helps to explain why the general community clamoured for more pvp protection over the years, (because the Bb did not help protect them/punish offenders to any reasonable degree) which a simple drop in gold profits on the PvP side does not explain, as if the gold was already well protected and players were managing to hide their gold effectively - why did they still feel the need to ask for PvP protection? I submit it is because they saw the system as unfair and could not escape or punish Pvp players for their actions in game, so sought an entirely new mechanic to be free of Pvp interference. You scared away your playmates again. This is a big reason why I think my theory fits the facts of our shared history a lot better. You can disagree with the narrative as I presented it. It is just an idea. Also : see the North wind and the Sun for gold incentives. They alone will not increase the Pvp game, in my opinion, only make the rest of the game cling harder to their gold. But I'm not against giving it a try.... unless it is shown to drop numbers. Lets do trial runs of simple mechanics changes and have HCS track player activity, gold flow, and reaction and decide how best to proceed on the basis of evidence. Will increased MT increase PVP activity without adversely effecting online numbers? Do a month long trial - and find out.Problem its - it should be advertised in advance to avoid any kind of smasher medal shock to the system - and the response from many players may be to simply buy PvP protection for the length of the trial. That data itself could be instructive of course to HCS. Trials of adjustments makes great sense to me, even if I have just shown how they can be complicated. Also if game numbers have dwindled that does not let PvP players off the hook, as pvp may well have contributed to that drop in numbers. I'm not saying solely responsible - mature games have life cycles - but many online games now have core memberships that do last many years - FS can be one of them, and I would hope have more again. I - like everyone else here, just want to be able to play the game. Nobody can deny at the very least that PvP rules changes especially the legendary smasher medal introduction, have caused numbers to drop in the past. Each side has their pet theory that favours them.

 

Good luck to everyone here, and good luck to HCS in looking for objective data to base their changes on. I'd really like it if you found some, and then, rather than being allowed to be accused of acting out of prejudice for one "side" or another (and we are belatedly all FS players - as I said at the outset of my OP) could simply point to the data, give your reasons and be done.

 

Obviously HCS may not want to share that level of detail. I leave that decision to them.

 

Thank you all again. Fare well.




#862306 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 12 April 2014 - 13:12

i stopped posting due to my input being called "assumptions". when the reason for this thread is based on assumptions......   my " assumptions" are based on my years of experience in this game and knowledge of the LVL'rs and pvp"rs  .....    but thats fine....  u tried your best to debunk any constructive input or ideas....   team work was great. thanks for trolling....  should try and be a little more flexible and work with others input.... things would have been more positive....  but no....  i feel its your way or the highway........  thats the impression u have given me reading along with others input to your opinionated ideas.

I have made clear arguments. I have not trolled. Nor did I get emotive and start talking about haters with no evidence.

 

Projection in a post - this should be a case study. There - that was trolling.

 

I put my ideas out here and have responded to most posts - I've been pretty flexible. In the face of some rather inflexible thought, if you must know.

 

The only team work was on your side, I alone have defended my ideas - the PvP community has appeared in force - you have forum counter bountied me - called in reinforcements first - LOL!! You make my point here too! But choose not to see it. Fair enough - if I could change your minds about how you are affecting the game, that would be great, but i don't expect that - I've read enough Pvp threads to know that is not how it ends. I'm making my case to the devs. They can look at the data and decide what to do.




#862303 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 12 April 2014 - 13:05

Even though this has probably been de-railed, and it's hard to pick out the good posts vs the flaming posts (which I agree usually happens with every discussion versus groups within this game).

 

However, Belaric, I don't necessarily agree about the bounty board. I don't think most of the suggestions would help make the bounty board a more active place, rather than not having enough bounty hunters. Activity on the board would mean more bounties, which would mean more opportunity for players to test the waters.

 

The first point - the victim setting the punishment. I can see this, but as with in the past, I don't think this necessarily worked out too well. I believe the amount of gold/fsp necessary to set the limits of what you would need to take 3-5 levels would outweigh the cost that would be required. You could not make this too cheap, as everyone would obviously want to take the maximum amount of levels - as was shown in the past when a player could pick between 10 and 100 stam bounties.

 

Which leads into the 2nd point - bounty hunting should have a risk involved with it - no matter what. There is a risk vs reward in all aspects of the game, and the risk should not be removed from the bounty board. To put it in a few words, bounty hunting is still Player vs Player, so as with PVP, there should always be a risk involved. Since players do not lose XP while losing to players on the bounty board, then they should still be able to be bountied. There are, and will continue to be some victims on those who bounty hunt, it should be expected to happen sometime. Most of the time, the bounty board is a self-policing part of the game, where those who bounty the bounty hunter for 10-stam clears, should receive 100 stams next time they're on the board. By removing the time limit of the bounty expiration, then you remove the main reason a few players have been complaining about being bountied for 10-stam clears (because it was too close to the bounty expiring). Also, there should never be the ability in the game to 100-stam a player without any repercussions - whether you're the "face of justice" that bounty hunters are or you are the most hated player in the game. I hate pulling RL examples into posts, but bounty hunters in real life take risks whenever they take a bounty. They can be hurt by the other person and still be arrested by the law for not following the law. I just don't agree with taking any risk out of a portion of the game, especially the bounty board. Quite frankly, I'd think that the suggestions may actually kill PVP in general as it's usually risk vs reward when it comes to PVP.

 

With being able to bounty the bounty hunters still in my mind, I don't see the advantages of guildmates clearing guildmates. I think this could even hurt the game by bringing out a lot of unnecessary drama in guilds - ie when a guildmate starts 100 stamming another guildmate, many people will complain and many guilds may fragment.

 

Finally, I like the idea of creating the new top rated. I see a lot of ways that they can be manipulated, but just like every leader board/reward, it can be done anyway.

 

Overall, I think the bounty board works pretty well as it does now. Even though plenty of players don't think it provides enough punishment, PVP players lose minimum 2x the amount of XP they can take from one player per hit. Another possible suggestion is the lower the amount of XP by .5 (maximum of 5% for 100 stam hit and .5% for 10-stam). This would increase the penalty for bountying hits to a minimum of 4x what a player can lose for a 100 stam. Increasing the PVP activity within the game would lead to more players put on the bounty board. Increasing theft rates of gold would be a great place to start.

 

Increasing PVP would lead to an increased use of the bounty board. The increased use of the bounty board would allow more players to take bounties, which will give more opportunity for new players to try bounty hunting. While this doesn't give players a way to really "learn" about PVP, but just like any other aspect of the game, people should take the time to learn the basics - whether it's an in-game tutorial with NPC type characters to test the skills of players in a PVP type setting without any repercussions

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Thanks for reading.

Thanks for your input kedyn. You make some fair points, tweaks and alterations would have to be addressed to make anything workable. You think the self-policing works. I don't. We'll have to leave it there, clearly. I think risk is a joke on the PvP side due to the BB - as I have said and explained elsewhere. I'll keep my opinion, you can continue to think that risk is a good thing on the BB. The proof of the pudding will be in its operation, and in the overall health of the game.

 

Increasing gold theft rates - sure try it. This is my allegorial opinion on why it won't work.

 

The North Wind and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger, when a traveler came along wrapped in a warm cloak. They agreed that the one who first succeeded in making the traveler take his cloak off should be considered stronger than the other. Then the North Wind blew as hard as he could, but the more he blew the more closely did the traveler fold his cloak around him; and at last the North Wind gave up the attempt. Then the Sun shined out warmly, and immediately the traveler took off his cloak.  

 

The north wind wants more incentives to steal gold - to blow off the cloak. The more you get to steal - the more the game population will cling to their cloak - hide their gold and avoid PvP. I'm not averse to trying it. I think other players here have pointed out that increasing gold alone will not solve the problem.   You need the sun, a reason for the players not to fear PvP any longer and relax and participate, take off their cloak and join in, if they want to. That was all I wished to do. Lets see what HCS decide to do.




#862062 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 11 April 2014 - 18:47

I was going to leave this thread alone as I felt I had said everything I really needed to say on the subject, and the matter was in the hands of HCS.

 

For what it is worth I have advocated trial runs of new PvP changes in future. A month was my suggested time frame to give HCS the time to analyse the effects on the game of any new ideas. I'm cool with that. It depends if HCS can justify coding development time on an idea that may run for a month and then be withdrawn - either to build a version of this idea or to undo coding and recreate the original system - both may be quite labour intensive, and not make sense to do both tasks if only one will be used, unfortunately - I wish it were otherwise, but HCS has to manage their employees time effectively. So we will have to see what they decide to do. We have put our ideas up for consideration.

 

However when I read this I was reminded of one thing I have not addressed. Victim blaming by the PvP community to justify their act of counter bounty on the board. I think it is reprehensible. So on seeing this I feel I must respond.

 

I will put anything up that there is more to this typical story of losing 5 levels for a 10 stam clear... anything!

Luis, this is unworthy, and it is not fair.

 

It is victim blaming.

 

You are basically saying "I don't know what happened but I bet he deserved it!" That sounds very reasonable - full of measured reflection. How do you know? What objective grounds do you have? None. Typical story - you admit that this happens with frequency then. Do you assume that EVERY time someone gets hit back on the BB they did something to deserve it? That is self serving self justification of your act to choose to escalate the conflict, CB and get your buddies to hit back. If you are incapable of ever admitting your side can do wrong then where are we?

 

Victim blaming is wrong. It is an ugly tactic used to justify ugly practices, and should be stopped.

 

It is self-serving propaganda to justify the act you want to commit - which is to counter bounty people.

 

Whose rules are being broken? Who is judging whether or not a person should be hit back for taking a bounty? Your rules, your decision, you have all the power, and not surprisingly, you like it that way.

 

It is the PvP players who make the first hit, who actually have a choice to act. See up thread for why all the choices a Non-PvP player are negative once he has been hit.

 

They are all negative because of Counter bounty and the ability of the initial aggressor (the PvP player posted to the board) to use it first in every circumstance.

 

The excuses for using CB  have been dressed up in codes and rules, all unwritten and unenforceable. And upheld by people who interest is to preserve their power over the BB, whose interest is in continued hitting. It's what you do.

 

I'd respect you all a lot more if you just came out and admitted "We like using CB because if we keep hitting people back on the board for taking our bounties or delevelling us, eventually they go away, and we get to do our gold hits/ any hits  without fear of retribution. We created our codes of conduct as a smokescreen to justify our naked self interest and advancement of our position within the game." Because that is what your actions add up to. Maybe you have not considered it in that way. But that is how it looks to folk outside of the PvP loop.

 

If it isn't a 100 stam clear that is wrong, it is a 10 stam at the wrong time. What is the BH'er to do - hit between 6 and 9 eastern standard time, holding a carrot in his right hand while chanting hail mary's? Would that be acceptable? No sorry - should have been the left hand - Counter Bounty time! That is how absurd your justifications are.

 

Instead we get ever more flimsy excuses to hit back and use counter bounty. Each one tailored to the specific context of the complaint raised, to find a way to blame the bounty hunter for your choice to hit him back. If you can't use real rules to win your argument you invoke your imaginary rules that your community supposedly agrees to. Is there a charter somewhere you sign? Can we see it? Maybe you just want to counter bounty because you are bored and your friends want something to do. Admit that then, but don't try to take some sort of bogus moral high ground and say you are 'punishing' people for doing the 'wrong thing' on the board. The only wrong thing they are doing is hitting you, which you don't like, but you deserve, because you chose to hit someone else first. If you are unwilling to admit that truth either, then again we are at an impasse. The only people who deserve to be on the board are the people who make attacks off the board. You get there no other way. You are there to be punished for that act. The victim doesn't post you so you can have fun dancing the BB, he posts you so you can be punished for hitting him. You should never have been given counter bounty, as whatever fair use it may have been originally put to, there isn't much left.

 

Ultimately this is not about examples, and individual verbal acts of dexterity to produce a new justification for the act of CBing - though I personally find it hypocritical. Why? Because you reserve the right to 100 stam people when you counter bounty, but somehow it is not okay for you to be even 10 stammed, if you can find some pretext to CB. One rule for you, one rule for the rest of us. Simple straight hypocrisy. Unless you 10 stam folk when you counter bounty them to show them how is should be done??

 

It is about the game rules. If you have an unwritten rule that says you'd 'never' CB a 10 stam clear, then why do you resist the idea that 10 stam clears be immune from bounty? Why not let the unwritten rule become actual game code?

 

Because they could be abused in the current system - though it would take a lot of work.

 

So then, change the current system:  remove the BH's choice of whether to 10 or 100 stam, if you make the punishment set by the victim, and the BH the simple enforcer of that punishment with no discretion of his own - most of your excuses for CB go away. You don't have your unwritten rules to get bent out of shape over - there is the crime, and the choice of punishment. 10 stam, 100 stam doesn't matter. This "don't hit me near my bounty expiry time" excuse for CB is ridiculous. And some within the PvP community agree it is a poor argument - which proves you are not a monolithic block of players all in agreement, and do not all follow the same rules. If you do not all follow the same rules, why should we have faith in them at all, or believe that just because one person says they follow a particular rule - that the next guy will have any reason to do so? There is none - because the rules are not real, not enshrined in game code. Your rules mean nothing because there is no way of knowing who will choose to adhere to them, or when. They undermine faith in your community. You have to take your lumps. You made the first hit, you CHOSE to attack someone without warning - they should get their chance to administer punishment. As Mzz said - some people will never want to PvP - so giving them free hits back does not work. But allowing them to set a punishment does - if they are prepared to pay for it. That way they feel they do not remain victims, they become participants.

 

BH should be immune to CB so they can not be repeatedly hit when trying to do their jobs and driven out of the game. I have argued this is what has happened over the years on the BB. The PvP community is motivated, organised and tightknit (look at you all here on this thread!!) - you have worked well together, and defeated all comers, but defeat via CB is crushing - it is who can keep losing 5 longest, and acts as a disincentive to come back, sooner or later. Who is going to keep playing a game where their opponents get to call for back up first and overwhelm them with numbers every time? The dead BB is proof of the disincentive CB has become  to try using the BB as punishment for the original off board attack.

 

So please do not blame the victim here. You are blaming the victim of CB on the BB using your rules and your justifications, none of which are actual game rules, and none of which are verifiable or enforceable. We only ever have your word to take for it, and why should we be forced to accept your word? I'd rather have a clear and objective rule, that is consistent for all, thank you. You can deny anyone ever gets CB'd for a simple clear. People keep saying they did. Who should we believe, the onlookers to this argument? You then try to tell them it was their fault. Their fault for trying to complete a bounty on someone who chose to hit another player. You are trying to make yourselves look good and sound honourable while trying to escape punishment for your original primary act of aggression.

 

Blaming the victim ultimately makes you look weak. If your justifications for CB were so strong, you would let them become actual game rules - no CB on a 10 stam clear. You resist that. Because 20 people might get together to delevel you using 10 stam hits. How likely is that? You hide behind your ever shifting codes because you just like the ability, and enjoy the advantage of CB.

 

One more time - victim blaming is ugly, and it is wrong. You should not have to resort to it to justify your behaviour. You should be better than that. It is yet another reason why the wider community has walked away from and does not engage in PvP - if someone is going to be told it is their fault they just lost 5 when they did nothing wrong, they are not going to be inclined to play that game, with those people again - trust is lost. The PvP game community shrinks with each person who decides not to bounty hunt any longer.

 

The system needs clarity and consistency, not unwritten rules and codes of behaviour that suit the makers of those codes. Doesn't have to be my ideas, could be none of them, I don't care, but the system needs to be clear and fair for all to see, otherwise you will never get more people to willingly participate in it.

 

No more victim blaming.




#861788 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 10 April 2014 - 17:41

I seriously don't have time to read the whole thread.. lol.. sorry if I reply to something that's already been addressed, but I'm curious and want to know some things. 

 

I am very much against these suggested changes, and some of the additional changes suggested in the thread. 

 

"If you play and hit now you supposedly risk 5 for every hit and are good with that. In this system you'd have more risk of losing levels, but more people would bounty and more people would bounty hunt -rather than a dead BB you might get one to actually play on. "

 

What do you base that opinion on? It is explained upthread. Repeatedly. In short - the dead BB. Players won't use it because they have no faith in it, BH won't BH because they get punished to hard for it, delevel parties get counter hit and so the initial victims side always loses more than the PvP side. This is all explained at length upthread. It is why I took so long to explain it.  To bounty hunt (successfully I might add), you need a LOT of gear. I don't see why this would make people want to invest in 100+ items so they could start bounty hunting. They can try it first - find their gear is insufficient and upgrade as required - without being counter bountied for their troubles. More people trying is good. let them find out if the gear requirements are too much. Maybe what they have is fine, depending on who they target. I'd be real interested in hearing what you base this on, since I like knowing how people think :)I'm sorry Mzz - it is all in this thread. read it and you will know what I think! I don't think anyone else wants me to do an detailed rewrite!

 

In my system you lose a bit more XP, and you get your game back, the BB arises as players will Bh who otherwise would never give it a shot. new blood 

 

I disagree. More people might bounty hunt, but there wouldn't be very many bounties to compete for. Mzz - there are none now. What is the loss? What is so great about how the BB is functioning now? Where are the bounties to compete for now? This is what I do not understand about folk defending the current system. It is clearly not working.

 

And why lose 3 instead of 5? Explained upthread. Because you would get punished more often, so i dropped the max level loss.

 

And why try to make people that don't like to pvp start pvping?  LMAO!! OH - THANK YOU! Tell that to Chazz please! It's not the lack of pvpers that keeps the BB dead. What is it then? And what are the PvPers doing if they are not on the board? Nobody else cares to answer that question - maybe you will.  Back when I started bounty hunting, there were usually 6+ pages of bounties to clear, at all times. Back then, the ladder wasn't opt-in, so it was more active pvp going on, people didn't ONLY get hit for gold. Nope - there is this concept of hitting for fun, or for competition, but that is not what the BB was designed for - it was designed to punish folk who hit other players, if the player hit felt suitably aggrieved. Posting people on the BB was once part of the advertising blurb for this game, I am sure. Been changed since I think.  (on a side-note: I don't think ladder hits should be bountyable, since the ladder IS opt-in, but that's off topic here.)

 

And yeah, why try to make more people pvp? In my experience, a lot of the levellers in the game already think there's too many of us ;) I'm not trying to MAKE anyone Pvp - my system provides more OPPORTUNITIES to PvP. People would still have the choice - I think they would - and people on another post said they would - if CB went away people who don't currently PvP said they would be interested in Bounty Hunting. They posted it, so they meant it, I assume. No making anyone there, just opening up the game for more.

 

 

 

"would be if the victim suceeds in ONE attempt WITHIN a ~24~ hour period after being attacked(victorious over their attacker WITH EXCEMPTION of themselves being bountied) they have their xp returned, they get ALL their gold back(which would stay in a loading zone till it was decided who it goes to) and a tick towards a new "honour" medal, would be in my view the best change and although this would be disagreed with heavily that if they fail in winning against the attacker THEN they can opt to post a bounty .... THIS would promote pvp to some or at least the various personalities i picture as willing to participate who probably never would smile.png"

 

... and this part would also kill off pvp very effetively. I know it might sound like a good idea, but let me say this... 

 

If I attack someone for gold, and have to wait 24 hours to get it, AND risk not getting it at all, why would I even bother? My buffs and the stamina I spent buffing up and attacking would have gone down the drain. If I did succeed getting the gold after those 24 hours, I myself would in effect become someone else's target for a gold hit, unless I was online and able to hide the gold. Should I be punished because someone wasn't smart enough to hide their gold? This would be a death sentence to pvp. That was undjuvion's concept I think. Not mine. I'm not going to comment there.

 

I appreciate the time people take to consider the bounty board and pvp, but I don't agree at all with these suggestions.

 

If you think about it this way, you might understand a bit better why we pvp:

 

Any game you play where you risk losing nothing, will start to bore you eventually. Disagree. Some people just like building stuff. They don't need it to be knocked down to value it. They also like competition, but to win you don't have to harm your opponent. Racing levels, beating people in the arena, #1in game, gold hoarding, winning GvG, top 100/3 in globals are all competitions and people like winning them - none involve having to hurt anyone else. Risk of losing something is not essential to make people compete. If you know you will win no matter what you do, what makes you strive to become better at it? Being better in and of itself? Winning arenas more often? Recognition in being the first to get a medal? There are loads of reasons  to become better that do not involve negativity. What makes you invest time and perhaps money into a game? Mzz - I invested my time and money just to gain levels. I liked it. I'm a simple soul. You may be wired differently and need more blood and thunder to get you going, and that is cool. I'm not denying you that choice - in fact my system gives you loads of opportunity to spill blood for you cause and lose things in order to win. For me, a game needs a bit of challenge, but I don't wanna jump through 300 different hurdles to MAYBE get what I want. It's all about math really. If I smack someone and get their gold, I am happy. If they can bounty me and take 5, they get happy. This is not a common occurrence on the BB as it exists now. As I explained upthread. The risk of losing 5 is minimal to you given how the Bb has reduced competition in that space. Few post, few hunt, fewer still delevel. If they do they get hit back harder than they can sustain. Risking 5 is a myth most of the time. It is a convenient one, but a myth nonetheless. On the other hand, if I risk less (just 3 levels instead of 5), why would someone bother bountying me? Because unlike in the current system where few people will have the balls to take you on and drop you 5 as the bounty poster wishes, in my system, with the punishment set by the victim, and the BH immune from CB - the victim will get what they want - redress. They will get happy as you say because they will know you can be punished. You get your happy from the gold hit - they get their happy from the effective bounty. Everybody wins. As it stands people don't post because they know either the bounty will be soft cleared by friends of the hitter or by a compliant BH who does not want to be CB'ds will soft clear with 10's. If cleared at all. As explained upthread. They'd get less happy. See preceding green blurb for why thet'd be more happy - they get reliable compensation - IF they are willing to pay for it. If they get what they pay for, they will be happy and use the system again. The PvP players gets their happy from the hit and the gold, the attacked person gets their happy from actual punishment administered (and you still might avoid that on the board - it is not guaranteed), not a slap on the wrist. If both sides feel they are getting value from this arrangement - both will use it. That is the key. PvP will be used more often, and players will be more comfortable and accepting of it within the game milieu. In fantasy land. But this is a fantasy game....If I had to sit online 24 hours after a gold hit, I might never ever sleep, since I might want to gold hit during those 24 hours too... and have to wait longer... and then find even more targets... and wait another 24 hours... I have a life outside of FS, so I'd never gold-hit again. the waiting 24 hours thing was not mine - no comment.

 

This whole thing is very frustrating to me. I know one thing that would put some activity back on the BB, and that would be to remove the opt-in on the ladder, and make every single player a target again for ladder-hits. That too has it's problems though, since it's been a while now since it was implemented. A lot of people would get very upset if it was removed. BG has mentioned ladder adjustment. Maybe they'll go away and we'll go open again with open rating. That would not bother me at all. Dominance medal can be sorted out this time. CB on the BB ensuring unfair advantage (albeit legally gained through a legal game mechanic) to PvP guilds will still stop people from participating on the BB even if the ladders go away, as they see no derivable benefit from it. As I have said before.

 

It's not an easy thing to balance, I agree, but I know for sure that the things suggested in this thread WERE implemented, it would make me just up and find something else to do, some other game to play, something with more "game" in it than would be left in FS. And you are entitled to that choice. I believe you'd get more opportunity to fight on the BB, not less, I believe your game would become more active. But it is just a theory. 

 

Just my 2 cents :)

 

Thank you for those. I appreciate your thoughts. I hope I have explained at least some of mine well enough for you.

 

Now I am done. I felt I should give Mzz her reply. Have a great day everyone!




#861761 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 10 April 2014 - 16:18

Hello Chazz. Playing the man and not the ball I see - because you cannot refute my arguments you try to go for me and the way I choose to play. Fair enough as a last gasp argument I suppose.

 

 

I've stated my opinions on this forum already on pages 2 ( at the bottom) - through 4 as to why I don't agree with the Topic ideas. Some have said I've made Hyperbolic suggestions which only means that some people didn't like my examples feeling they meaning greatly exaggerated in not realistic.It is because your examples made little sense. Don't invoke the Germans.

 

I have a question for Belaric - in this new system Belaric has argued that this change to PvP and the Bounty Board would entice more people to play the game and encourage PvP in it. <----- This being said in this new system - speaking honestly would you Belaric join the ranks of PvP and steal someone's gold knowing that you will be held accountable and lose three levels?  Be honest with the people here sir - it's clear that you Belaric have no PvP medals and no experience in this field but I wanna know would you take part in this idea of yours?

 

I doubt I would. There you have your "aha! I gotcha! I KNEW it!" moment. I hope you enjoy it.

 

Why not? Because the game environment as it stands is rich enough for me to choose not to play PvP when it systematically disadvantages me to do so (thank god, otherwise I'd have stopped playing years ago), so if it were made fairer, I could play, but I have things I prefer to do.

 

What you singularly and consistently fail to do Chazz, is understand that for some people no level of incentive will make them PvP. I might take bounties - I have in fact completed a bounty, on a friend, as a favour. It was not interesting to me. I have played the ladder when needed for my guild. It was not a thrill.

 

I don't mean you attack someone just once in your lifetime - I mean would you be willing to PvP on a daily basis with this system you are proposing to the community?

 

Frankly why should I? Why should I play your game Chazz, I'm not interested in it! In this thread I have consistently pointed out that what is needed is balance in the system - it currently entirely favours the PvP player. Just balancing the system does not mean I, or anyone else would have to join in, but make it much more likely some will. In fact there have been people saying as much when BG suggested the idea of taking away CB. People posted saying it would make them interested in PvP - right there are your new players - you do not have to cajole me into playing also. This is again more of your idea that everyone should find PvP exciting and desirable. It isn't going to be for everyone. Just as folk think mashing a titan for hours is like watching wallpaper dry, so is waiting for the time between allowed hits on the BB. And some people derive no satisfaction in stealing someone else's gold and would rather not steal someone else's effort, but expend their own. Some people do not seek out conflict - indeed would rather avoid it if they could. Why do you seem incapable of inserting yourself into that worldview?

 

I suspect your answer to be a very strong No but if so keep in mind it sincerely should be a strong YES if you are so noble should it not?If I am so noble - some sort of dig at me, Chazz? Whatever. It should NOT be a strong yes as I explained above. There is NO reason ,even under a fair and balanced system - for EVERYONE to WANT or even desire to play it. You are attacking me personally, my choices in the game, in order to discredit my ideas in order to defend a bankrupt status quo that is to you and your community's benefit. You don't want to lose your WIN. Your argument does not make much sense as my participation or lack of it in my own system in no way invalidates it. And again - it will be no more inactive than the current dead system. You never answer why you like the current system as it is - and silence is an increasingly loud reply - because in the current system your team almost always wins. Congratulations.

 

I feel differently than Belaric - I've explained many times how PvP ( in it's current state while lacking at the moment has great potential)  PvP keeps people playing - it keeps them " Active - Online " PvP supports the AH and the Buff Market.And I've always thought that was utterly bogus - thanks for raising it again so I can give my side the PvP economic argument.

You pour gold into buffs, and potions, you buy gear and participate in the economic activity of the game. Fair enough, but where do you get your wealth? 3 Places - other people, donating, or hunting like everyone else. The hunting can be ignored as that is the same for everyone. Other people. You STEAL your gold. Not only what - of what you steal a large amount is sunk out of the game - it cannot contribute to the economy or change hands any longer. So if the gold stayed in the hands of the original player who had it - there would be MORE gold in the system, and potentialy MORE economic activity. Now before you say - well the gold sink helps the economy too, let me remind you that your side is arguing that hardly any gold hits are happening anymore, and that is why the BB is dead. So the gold sink is negligible by your argument currently. Once, back in the day it was an important part of the game economy, but as billybob pointed out, there are a lot more gold sinks in the game now. Or are you finally willing to admit that you are still actively gold hitting and you therefore do contribute to the economy - but to do that you must admit you are hitting off the board and not even being bountied - which reinforces my basic points about the BB being broken and systematically advantaging the PvP player. Which is it to be, Chazz?

 

The PvP players are big donators (apparently - HCS has the actual data) - is it enough to offset the players that leave the game due to PvP activity, or do you have the sand to try to argue that does not happen? One PvP player with 2000 stam in a PvP guild, with no upgrades to his stam gain beyond what he gained from the initial epic quests can conservatively choose to 100 stam 10-15 times a day - assuming he rebuffs sometimes when he does not get buffs from his guildies. Of course he can buy buffs with the gold he steals as he goes along. No stam waste there. That is one player adversely - negatively effecting up to 15 other players EVERY DAY. Or one poor player multiple times. Multiply that by the number of PvP players in game. Multiply up for the duration of the game. That is a lot of negative consequence doled out to other players, who may have little interest in playing PvP, and who may decide, that as they cannot get any redress for these hits via the BB that they may as well quit. Do PvP donators make up for that possible loss of revenue? I seriously doubt that - but it is for HCS to decide. They can look at player accounts and see if folk who left suffered significant PvP activity in the week or days before they went inactive - that would give a crude measure of how much PvP activity costs the game in player numbers. And some of these are not low level, they have donated and would have continued to donate. So don't try to tell me about PvP's positive economic impact, at the very best it might be a wash, more likely stolen gold shrinks economic impact, and PvP donations do not make up for the players lost from the game.

 

One thing I will say - in the early years of the game PvP was very important as a gold sink - there were not as many others then. Composing is now a huge sink in game, and it is recent. And in the early years of the game everyone was low level. online numbers were high - PvP was much more widespread. This is the golden era some folk keep casting back to. It was only sustainable because of the high numbers of people coming into the game to offset the numbers leaving - because the game was new, big advertising, lots of word of mouth - so it looked like everything was hunky dory. As the game has matured, numbers have dropped - both sides have said that it has dropped further around changes to PvP. PvP is the common thread to arguments about numbers dropping. PvP players have walked away too, but PvP players are the MINORITY in this game. The proof? The BB again helps me out - if the majority of players in this game played PvP the BB would not be dead. They'd be on it trading hits. The supposed majority would still be playing their game. The incoming number of players no longer matches or exceeds the numbers going out, and because the new players are so far behind the top in terms of gold gain etc, their initial economic contribution is tiny and does not yet make up for higher level players driven out. PvP is not the only reason people leave - they get bored, the achieve their objectives, a new game comes along that excites them more, but PvP is the ONLY in game activity that can actively contribute to player loss. And, stam tick for stam tick as I demonstrated above, one PvP player can adversely effect far more players than he benefits. So not only have you killed your own game, as I have argued upthread, but you may be helping to kill the entire game. How's that for hyperbole, except it isn't because it is grounded in a clear sequence of facts. Unless you'd like to deny one PvP player can hit multiple targets in 15 minutes, and potentially eradicate WEEKS of accumulated stam those players had waited to regenerate before hunting? I say potentially as the target should hide their gold as they go - but the principle remains. A small number of PvP players can effectively hurt and damage multiple other players' characters. And that is ignoring low level PvP multis who funnel gold from newbs to other accounts. Newbs are the most likely to give up and go elsewhere, why stick around for the hassle when there are other games? A lot of donations lost there. New players have not yet developed any emotional attachment to this particular game, so don't need much negative action to decide to leave. But I'm sure no honourable PvP player would think of doing that. I have been told, by vastilos no less, that gold hunting/farming from other players is most profitable at low levels. And low levels is where the game is weakest and needs most protection.

<------ I've advocated in prior and previous threads / topics  for expanding these areas of the game. It's my feeling that if everyone was well versed and new how to PvP where they would be able to capitalize here and there with the current system more would take part in this which would lead to a healthy bounty board - also a very active community of people.And my system provides a way for more people to become well versed in PvP. You just have to give up the advantage that you currently enjoy. Most of which is embodied in the counter bounty, as I have shown upthread. I'm actually on your side here - if PvP is demystified, and if players feel that they can get recompense for being hit, they won't quit in frustration. The game thrives. Again - please try to argue that PvP does not lead people to leaving the game. And please don't try the "isolated incidents" or "bad apples" argument. When it suits you you all reap the benefits of the system you currently enjoy, dead BB and all. Therefore you all need to bear responsibility for the negative effects of player loss.

 

I don't feel that turning fallen sword into a Sigma Storm will help.Thanks Chazz - you are the gift that keeps in giving, this is yet another holy cow of PvP argument that falls flat on its face and has not been suitably shown up for the idiocy it is. Sigma Storm did not fail because of its PvP system - though that fits your narrative very nicely, and it was an imperfect system and certainly may have contributed. If this game fails will you accept that PvP contributed to its failure - or will you continue to claim that PvP is the solution to all the game's woes, if you can just make everyone join in?  It failed because of the god awful mission system being tied to gaining skill points. The story lines were better, but the endless grind of blue prints and inventing missions got unbearably tedious. That was a disincentive to play if you PvP'd or not in that game. It made the game repetitive and rote, and you HAD to do the missions or you could not improve your character, they were not optional if you wanted to progress. People here complain about them here if too many invent quests show up. So NO - Sigma Storm's failure was not all about PvP. It is a false analogy. I'd like it if you stopped trying to use it.   I could be wrong about this just as I could be wrong about Belaric willing to join the PvP community. Yes, very unlikely that I am wrong on either account but it's possible. There are numerous threads / topics up at this very minute that support PvP - support the community - ideas that positively help and encourage PvP through out the game, I may not feel this is one or one of the best - however that's just my opinion.

 

So Belaric if you are not willing to join the PvP community now or even with your new idea - my question is why should any of us? Because, my friend - you like that style of play and want to see it survive in the game. It is in your blood, so I'm told. I've told you I wouldn't be one of the people you will see there....You threaten to leave. Again. I'm out of patience with that also. Go on and leave. Your community is a minority - you are the tail that seeks to wag the dog. If you all left the game numbers would drop, but it would not die. If you all left no-one would be forced from the game by PvP anymore and so new walk ins would be welcomed and find a rich game world to explore and many activities to do. If you all left time and energy expended by HCS trying to solve this problem could be used revamping other areas of the game like the arena - where people do actually fight and compete on a level playing field, unlike in PvP where the initial aggressor - the PvP player -  has all the advantage. If you all left GvG could get some love and be revamped according to Rye's very good ideas and people could enjoy the mechanics of beating people in their level range with active buffs and gear on but without any of the negative effects of PvP. PvP gear would not go to waste. So yeah, I'm not sweating on it if you decide to leave. It is you staying and the game continuing as it is that has me worried.   Also Belaric if you are unwilling to 100 stam people and go to the bounty board to lose your level what makes you think anyone else would just curious? For the 'fun' you talk about in the game? The challenge that has been so often spoken of? Or the gold and the increased gold rewards? For the medals you might get? Because it is what you as PvP players have always done - but it is now clear you have done it while avoiding risk and losing as few levels as possible. <---- Does this sound very motivating and positive for the game ? Funny. I think cleardawn provided you with the answer earlier in this thread when she said PvP players were prepared to lose XP in order to play their game. It seems I have revealed that you don't really want to.If you did it would be positive for the game - there would be more activity - you just don't want to play because you might have to work a bit harder at maintaining tour level. I'll talk about that more below. Sounds like we are talking about killing pvp or making it punishable by the max and than hopping more will join due to this idea - but it was and is my belief we've lost more people due to PvP being nerf'd. We lose more people by PvP existing as it does - don't try to claim victim status when your game style victimises others. It is disingenuous to the extreme.

 

 

- Chazz

This is my only post today as I think it clearly enough demonstrates the weakness of the current system. Again. And thanks to Chazz I have had the opportunity to present counter arguments to often presented pvp beliefs that I believe are bogus and not relevant to any discussion of PvP in game.

 

Mzz I see your posts. I'll get to them later. This has not been a quick post. I think may have answered or answered by implication some of your questions in this post anyway.

 

The concern exists in another post that the level loss would be severe enough to cause you to have to wait to regain your levels, and would cause problems in keeping up with gear. You imagine you'll be smacked down to level 1. I like that you can see that much activity!! How cool is that - you by admitting that possibility - allow the fact that my system WOULD stimulate PvP - how else could you lose your levels if it were not more active? Thanks for the support!!!

 

May I point out that this level loss is entirely within the PvP player's control? You CHOOSE when yo hit, you therefore CHOOSE how much risk to expose yourself to in my system - which is demonstrably higher than the low level risk you currently are exposed to for every gold hit. If you do not want to lose too many levels - don't hit as often. Rotate in and out - make tactical decisions about how to use your stam - you know - play the game as it is supposed to be played. As it stands PvP players often have wide ranges in which they can operate very effectively with highly superior gear to the average hunter moving through. If you go below your VL and eventually drop out of your gear range - if your character is still standing in your VL realm - you get to regain your levels for very little stam versus someone levelling through for the first time. Therefore it will not take you long to get back to your position. Far less time than it would take the person you are hitting, who is hunting through it for the first time. Abuse of this mechanism allows 'bad apples' to follow after targets for many many levels hitting them. Of course it is always someone else doing that isn't it? Never the honourable PvPer. Anyway, that dig aside - the PvP player can play a range - have excellent gear 10-100 levels below his VL that allows him to defeat most targets, and can regain those levels very fast due to the VL loophole. It therefore doesn't look too tricky to allocate resources so you can continue to do what you say you enjoy - hit other players, and then dance on the BB as a result. Yep you might lose levels - if the targets can pay to make you lose 3 every time you'll still need to be bountied 4 times to drop out of a 10 level target range. depending on your VL and your stam that could be very easy to regain. Is that so hard to live with? Really? The ball is in your court - you get ways to play this system, if you would just let go of the advantages you have in CB.

 

Or don't and keep going as we are. Dead BB, dwindling numbers, moribund game.

 

I'll be honest - I have hardened my stance as this conversation has gone on because all I see are people defending their in game advantage and are unwilling to relinquish it for the overall health of the game. This is the short hand/summary of my position. Why is all explained upthread if you choose to look.

 

Choice and Risk are one sided - they favour the PvPer every time. CB is entirely under the control of the PvP team - you always get to use it first.  Its use has driven away players from PvP and the BB in particular as they quickly learn they will always lose to the PvP team, and lose more levels than they inflict - it makes no rational sense to continue competing in an arena where you will be outnumbered most of the time. Gold is not free or if it is, then so are your levels, stop trying to protect them. If no harm is done by stealing 'free' gold, then no harm is done by losing 'free' levels. Let's put the free gold argument to bed. The PvP economic contribution is wildly overstated and may be negative given PvP's unarguable potential for actively driving players from the game. We can argue about the exact numbers and we don't know them - but I've put an idea out there for HCS to investigate and get objective evidence - just as I did about gold hits vs BB activity. Sigmastorm has no relevance to these discussions - the system was utterly different as were the reasons for its failure. The PvP community is a powerful minority in this game, but a minority nonetheless - if it was in the majority the BB would not be dead - don't threaten us with your exit. For all you know you'd help the game survive long term if you did leave.

 

Once again - thank you everyone for reading.




#861458 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 09 April 2014 - 13:54

after many novels I am simply going to pose a couple of RHETORICAL questions to the OP.

 

1) Will this change bring more players to the game?

 

and

 

2) Who is this change really geared at?

 

 

Keeping in mind these questions are rhetorical, I can honestly not see anything positive coming from the the suggestions offered , therefore I obviously do not support them.

 

A lot of posters think they have all the answers yet they haven't walked in the other parties shoes. Something else to ponder on.

 

I am not going to try to 'debate' the matter either, as it's nothing more than a spherical sharp tugging motion thread now.

This will be my last answer of the morning. Thank you everyone for your patience.

 

I have asked a lot of questions that have not been answered. Unlike my unanswered questions, which I believe have been left unanswered because the truth would undermine the defenders of the status quo, I will answer yours. Rhetorical or not.

 

Will this change bring more players to the game?

 

YES. Because it will slow or halt player loss - increased retention, especially among new players will lead to increase in online numbers. Why will this happen? Because as I have stated - a system that demonstrates actual fair punishment for unprovoked attacks and gold hits will restore player faith in the game. Currently that does not exist, and that is part of why the BB is not used - the population that should be using it, has no faith in it anymore. People who feel they have no recourse in the face of aggression with now have that, and not be forced to either suck up life as a random victim, or leave the game. if fewer people leave, the game numbers go up. Everyone wins - even the PvP players! They get more targets if they are prepared to accept the medicine for their attacks. They can regain those levels -just hit that champ. With a more active BB more PvP players may stay too - something will be there for them to do! Depends on whether they really want to play PvP or just like easy wins over targets who are not ready for them.

 

Who is this change really geared at?

 

An odd question, but I'll take the bait as I have no fear of being honest here in my answers. I could say it is geared at helping the whole game population, and I believe that is true, but if you want me to be specific I will say it is geared at the PvP population who have long enjoyed advantages through counter bounty, and this has translated into advantages/ control of the BB, minimising risk to the PvP community and allowing them freedom of action. This has ironically led their own game into stagnation, if they would but see it. It is totally unbalanced, and that has led the wider population to 1) not participate as it is pointless - they get no benefit, 2) Harass HCS for other forms of protection, as the PvP system itself provides none. This then led to PvP being more marginalised. This situation has not arisen quickly. It should have been noted and addressed years ago. This is my opinion only. You are free to disagree - but no-one has really refuted my arguments in the slightest about how this has come about. If they can - more power to them.

 

You know, I believe I have put myself in the other parties shoes - can the PvP community say the same? I have seen little empathy or consideration for the persons attacked here. cleardawn excepted. I have, time and again demonstrated a willingness to converse and to put Ideas forward that I think will help PvP players play PvP against other players. That I have taken on some sacred cows in the process makes it uncomfortable - fine. PvP shapes the entire game - I have demonstrated that also. I am entitled to my opinions.

 

Interesting that your first and I presume only post is to ask questions, ridicule asking questions and then say you'll not bother debating. Your choice.

 

Have a good day folks. I've spent 2 hours here already. I appreciate the input.




#861207 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 08 April 2014 - 17:53

Under the current system, the bounty board can *thrive*  via off the board hits, or counter bounties. Yes, atm it has been eerily quiet, but I believe its due to the fact fewer and fewer people play this game anymore, along with the fact gold is hard to find on hand, and that the cows tend to step in over any sort of repeated hits, wars and so on. Trust me, I know from experience, a few hits off the board  can equal a suspension or a slap on the wrist. Why is someone going to pvp if the creators of the game seem to shun it themselves?

 

With your suggestion, counter bounties can no longer happen, meaning one less way of a *bounty* being placed. So your idea depends heavily on actual pvp combat occurring off the board.Also, it seems to me ( tho you may not intentionally be doing so) but you're vilifying counter bounties all together) Sure, there's some (not so nice) people who counter bounty everything, me personally I counter anyone who quits, or if someone randomly tries smashing for a medal etc.

 

Anyone who partakes in pvp runs the possibility of being bountied once they click *attack player*.  That's regardless of whether its a bounty or an off the board hit. I don't understand why that should be changed.  An attack is an attack. Are you saying that the bounty board is not player versus player?

 

 

You mention the bounty board/ pvp and one-sided in your post, which I can't understand, as the attacker/defender always has a *choice* . This idea of yours ( to me) seems to entail making the bounty board purely one sided. I get players want more punishment, or to *seek revenge* . However, maintaining the board as a chopping block for those who pvp ( off the board hits being the only *bountyable action) , yet a bounty free opportunity for those who want to smash/ gain bounty medals, or prestige isn't the way to go about it.

Hello Maehdros - thanks for the reply.

 

I will again be upfront and say I pretty much totally disagree with you. I will try to explain why.

 

You think the board can thrive off board based hits or counter bounties. The simple evidence of board inactivity speaks otherwise.

 

You think this may have something to do with dwindling game numbers. And gold being harder to find. Gold is harder to find because it is rational when faced with gold thieves in the game to take measures to hide it.

 

Numbers dwindling. Well, if you want to go there... there is one in game activity above all others that may have a negative effect on in game numbers, has a negative effect on players' in game experience, and may actively drive players out of the game.

 

That activity is PvP. If you want me to go into detail I can and will at length. I think you know the arguments.

 

So it is a little rich to say - "Well Pvp isn't active so much, because the game isn't active so much, which PvP may in fact have contributed to."

 

Unless you are prepared to say that PvP has had nothing to do with players quitting the game. Are you prepared to claim that?

 

Off board hits get banned. That is between you and HCS then. They seem to find some off board activities deleterious to the game and act to stop them. You feel they are being heavy handed. I have no axe to grind there, I have no evidence of it one way or another.

 

Yep. In my system off board activity leads to on board activity, as it was meant to. It depends entirely on off board activity. Because counter bounties and board to board activity, have, in my opinion and as I have argued, actually killed off the BB.

 

This leads me to ask you a question: What do PvP players do all day? I've asked it before, and no-one has answered. You are not on the BB, it is dead. Are you sitting around having a quiet chat and checking up on world news? Am I to believe that you are NOT doing hits off the board? You admitted in your own comment you do, and sometimes get banned for it. So either you are doing nothing and your game style is dead anyway. Or you are doing hits, and not being bountied. The second is my contention. If you give people a reason to bounty - decent punishment, and a reason to bounty hunt - decent reward and immunity from the Counter bounties which drove them from the board in the first place, you will have more board activity, more players playing PvP, more of the community involved and happy with the way PvP functions within the whole game, IMHO. You may disagree,and defend the current defunct system.

 

So yeah - I'm vilifying CB's generally. They have strangled the life out of the game style you love Maehdros, in my opinion, by making people disinclined to work the BB, or hit back, for fear of being CB'd. As I have explained at length up thread. Twice. In using them you are harming your own style of play. Don't believe me - just look at the board.

 

You see there is the problem. "Sure, there's some (not so nice) people who counter bounty everything". Your words. This act destroys faith in hitting back, in bounty hunting, in doing a delevel party. You can't blame some 'bad apples' and expect no negative consequences. Saying "they did it, but I'm okay!" Doesn't work, especially not if you are their ally/guildmate. Especially not if you participated in the counter bounty as a hitter. What is the rest of the game population to make of that position? They can't trust you. They don't trust PvP. They don't participate anymore - your game style gets smaller. You cannot get away with blaming poor choices to CB on "those guys" it is on your entire community, like it or not - it negatively effects your entire community, like it or not.

 

"Anyone who partakes in pvp runs the possibility of being bountied once they click *attack player*.  That's regardless of whether its a bounty or an off the board hit. I don't understand why that should be changed.  An attack is an attack. Are you saying that the bounty board is not player versus player?"

 

It should be changed because the BB is dead, and it is dead because, as I have explained, counter bounties have strangled your game. Bounties do not work. They are no deterrent, and precious little punishment currently, as any heavy punishment gets CB'd. In the short term you get more action, in the long term it drives people out.

 

An attack is not an attack. That is false. The initial attack is a premeditated strike on an unwary opponent in order to gain gold. That attacker has all the advantages. After he has made the attack he can act to defend himself, gear and buffs to make a hit back harder. He doesn't know when he'll be hit, true, but he has an idea he has it coming - unlike the first person. He gets put on the BB - he can defend himself. If he gets put on when he is offline - well that is no worse than attacking someone without warning is it? Seems fair. Counter bountying someone punishes the person who is trying to act for the initial victim, it is an attempt to obstruct natural justice, and I have argued that over the years it has worked - this is where we are on the BB.

 

The BB is player vs player. Nowhere do I deny it - you can only be hit by another player on the BB, so what is your point  - how am I removing the P from PvP, by promoting PvP play on the BB? It has been held up as the highest art form - dancing on the BB was supposed to be fun and cool. The challenge of playing an active human opponent. And yet it no longer happens much, and you are trying to say that has nothing to do with your own actions or style of play. I think that there is a connection, and I have demonstrated it. You can feel free to disagree and come up with your own thesis.

 

I think that if the BB is dead, and PvP players and guilds persist and are active, then 1) benefit to PvP players and guilds extends from an inactive bounty board - the reduction of real risk to their players as explained upthread.  2) They are still playing PvP. If you were not, you'd have retired by now. As I have asked repeatedly - what are you doing all day if not PvPing? If you are not PvPing and just playing other aspects of the game, why keep the BB at all? Why defend a dead institution? Because you derive benefit from it. I can't prove that, it is a deduction. I asked for the relevant stats upthread. But the answers I have received have done nothing to dissuade me that my deduction is far off the mark. Therefore you are still hitting off the board and not being punished for it - which suits you fine, that is the win in your game style. It just is not helping the overall game anymore, IMO, as nobody else wants to play that way. Why else did the community ask for PvP protection, if not to defend themselves as they found the BB incapable of doing so?

 

Ahh - CHOICE  - that old chestnut. Thanks for giving me the chance to address that. Do you really believe the choice is equal in PvP?

 

Choice exists on the PvP side, not the victim's side.

 

The PVP player chooses when and where to first hit. Advantage to the PvP side.

 

The person hit gets to *choose*

1) To ignore the hit and accept the loss. Choose to be a victim.

2) Hit back, and run the risk of counter bounty. Choose to be victimised twice.

3) Bounty and let a BH do their fighting for them. But the BH does 10 stam hits, or the target is soft cleared by his friends, who take the posters posted gold after doing little harm to their buddy. The choice to be a victim at second hand.

4) Organise a delevel party, running the risk that his friends who do a hit on a PvP player in a Pvp guild will all be deleveled. The choice to make his friends victims too.

 

What is appealing about those choices? The person who first hit has the last laugh in all of them. As I explained up thread any escalation of counter bounties favours the Pvp player, guild and allies as they 1) Like the pvp game and are motivated to play it, 2) have the numbers to keep coming back. Those who are not as committed will fold first most of the time, having lost more levels than they inflicted. So being big and ballsy and trying to fight it out just means more losses in the end on the victim's side. This is a lesson that has been taught over the years and well  absorbed by the non-pVP playing community. As explained upthread.

 

The PvP player has the choice to counter bounty if hit back or bountied. Advantage to the PvP side. Every time.

 

Choice is an illusion you'd like us all to believe we have when we get hit - but all our options end up the same, with Pvp players on the ascendant. This is why the rest of the community

 

CHOSE TO WALK AWAY.

 

Or in fact chose 1) to be a victim, not make a fuss and not bounty - anything for a quiet life.

 

Choice like risk is decidedly one sided in the current system. And all in favour of the Pvp guild structure and the Bb as it exists now.

 

My idea makes the BB one sided? Maybe it seems that way to you given you do not see how the current system is so one sided in your favour. I'm offereing to balance something long imbalanced - to give the victim actual redress, and the PvP players actual competition and activity. My aim is to boost the whole community.

 

My system, as said upthread many times - gives more players the chance to participate. Yes Pvp players will get bountied more often (if you are actually doing any hits), but you will have the chance to take more and richer bounties. There would be more activity on the board, which can only be  PvP - so you would get more chances to fight on the board against other players. More playing of your game - the Pvp game.

 

Want to PvP? Go hit someone - get bountied and duke it out! What is so hard to comprehend in that? You gold hit anyway, and then you get more opportunities to fight on the board against folk who are no longer afraid of being CB'd off the board and out of the PvP game. You get more playmates, and some of them will switch codes after a while. The price you pay? Some levels lost. The PvP community has always maintained it did not care that much about levels and that they can be freely regained. Is that true or not? So hit, fight, lose some levels, regain them, rinse and repeat.

 

"However, maintaining the board as a chopping block for those who pvp ( off the board hits being the only *bountyable action) , yet a bounty free opportunity for those who want to smash/ gain bounty medals, or prestige isn't the way to go about it."

 

I think it is. I think I've explained why. The board currently is a chopping block for those who do not Pvp regularly and who are not in the club - how is that in any way any better? What is your alternative suggestion? Because once again - if you are defending the status quo you are defending a dead system that favours the PvP side heavily, and has failed. The Pvp community can stick with it, but not be surprised that nothing continues to happen. As I have explained upthread - your excellence and skill in using legal game mechanics to dominate your game space has ironically killed it at the same time.




#861172 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 08 April 2014 - 14:53

I don't mind changing the punishment aspect of the bounty board but all hits need to be bountiable. Bounty hunters get a reward for clearing bounties and also should have some risk applied. If you really want to limit the damage that can be done on a counter bounty make it so bounty hunters can only lose 1 level.

Thanks markaaron

 

That is much fairer if you want to keep CB. I think it could be done away with altogether, but that would be a compromise worth trying.




#861169 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 08 April 2014 - 14:39

The Myth of Risk

 

In this post I am going to try to demonstrate why the 'risk' inherent in the PvP system as it stands is heavily tilted towards the PvP player operating in a PvP guild.

 

I will now stress that this has been achieved using freely available in game mechanics - no foul play needs to have been indulged in - simply the application of allowed game play.

 

I have argued that these things have led to the demise of the BB, as is daily evidenced, and the withering of the PvP game itself.

 

My purpose is to demonstrate that saying 'risk' must remain in the system is disingenous if you are a PvP player defending that system, as 'risk'  - or rather - the probability of being hit back or delevelled for your actions has been systematically reduced by PvP play style. Entirely within game rules. The PvP player has a low probability of being bountied, and then if bountied, a low probability of actually losing 5. This is not risky by any stretch of the imagination. The word risk implies chance of failure. PvP players, on each individual gold hit, are not running much risk at all.

 

How to begin?

 

I think with the forum scenario that best illustrates this position.

 

A player comes on line and complains that PvP players get to hit without warning, when they want, and geared up and buffed to ensure maximum advantage and a very high probability of a win and successful gold steal. They say this isn't fair. I think we can agree this kind of complaint has been put forth on the forum.

 

The PvP player's response is; "Ah, but we risk losing 5 for every hit! Yes we have an advantage - but we pay for it on the BB! Post a bounty or hit back! We're good with that!"

 

This is not exactly true.

 

The BB is dead - we can all see and agree on that. The BB is a measure of bounty activity.

 

I have argued that over the course of the game Counter Bountying (CB) has been used to drive competition off the BB. PvP players in PvP guilds are capable of escalating conflicts using CB beyond their opponents ability to sustain. A quick recap.

 

A player gets hit for gold. He bounties. His buddies do a delevel party. The Gold hitter - a PvP player in a PvP guild, counter bounties the entire delevel party. His guild and allies delevel everyone in that party. So for a 5 level loss, a 20 level penalty is extracted. The PvP side in each round inflicts far more damage than it receives. The conflict has gone from 1 on 1 to 4 on 1 to 16+ on 4. Can the side that was originally hit take on and delevel all 16? Unlikely - if they do, again the next round the numbers against them will be even larger. They cannot compete. They withdraw. The lesson is - do not mess with that PvP guild and its allies. This lesson is repeated multiple times over the last few years of the game. Delevel parties get rarer as fewer guilds see the point of risking putting their friends at risk for counter bounty and losing 5. It does not make much rational sense to exchange 20 levels for 5 on a consistent basis.

 

Bounty hunters. PvP players in PvP guilds counter bounty them - for whatever reason, and they do not need any - they could do it for simple rational utility - if they keep CBing BH's and dropping them 5 then BH's will go away and the PvP player will get more free gold hits as bounties will not be punished. Also - and as a happy side effect PvP players like to do PvP so counter bountying to them appears to be a way to keep their game lively. Except with every round of counter bounties you are inviting 4 of your friends to attack one other player, so the odds are always stacked in your favour. The risk, as it were, favours your side.

 

How do BH's react? Under the current system they either stop - or play nice, they clear the bounty using 10 stams and hope to avoid being CB'd. Either way the PvP players and guilds win - they can hit other people for 5 levels on the BB consistently, as they have the numbers and the will to do so, and they get soft cleared using 10 stams from either their friends, or from bounty hunters who don't want to be dropped.

 

This, over time becomes institutionalised, PvP playes and guilds can almost always inflict more damage on the Bb than they receive. Other players in the game, not being blind, recognise this fact. They also recognise that soft clears using 10 stam do not do very much damage to the gold thief who hit them, they can easily maintain their level, so the Bb does not help a PvE style player escape a PvP player's target range. To add insult to injury it becomes evident that if you post a bounty the gold hitters friends are the most likely to clear the bounty, (as BH's are thin on the ground, and players and guilds have been taught the lesson that delevel parties get bloodier for the non-PvP side than the PvP side) so the gold thief steals your gold, and then his friends win the bounty and cause him minimal level loss if at all. Rational players realise that the BB cannot help them. They stop using it.

 

The PvP players have insulated themselves from risk. By CBing and doling out far more damage than they receive they have driven competition off the BB, both from other guilds who are not as committed to the PvP cause as they, and from independent BH's who find it hard to justify the loss of levels for the rate of reward - if they even win the bounty, given the network of PvP allies available to clear their buddies bounty using 10 stams.

 

This is a reward for PvP players for organising, getting guilds and allied guilds together. The entire game knows who you are and not to mess with you. It is a result of operating within the system you were given. A tamed and controlled BB that works for your side, and not for anyone else.

 

The PvP players have insulated themselves from risk. They do not get bountied as often as a result of gold hits, they do not get delevelled as often by other guilds, and BH's do not hit them heavily as often for fear of CB and retribution.

 

So if we exchange the word 'risk' for chance or better still probability - we see that the probability of a PvP player losing 5 for a gold hit has been systematically reduced by PvP activity. All legally done. But detrimental to your own game. No-one is interested in playing anymore. Not much fun playing a game where you always lose. Conversley - the PvP community likes this game just fine, they win most of the time. But in winning they are losing players to play with - their game gets smaller, the gold available has got smaller. The PvP community starts asking for incentives to help their game, without realising that they are the reason their game is smaller.

 

Look at what happened - instead of using the BB - the rest of the game population - rational actors also - realised they needed defence from PvP activity, as they cannot stop the initial gold hit - the PvP player always has the advantage there, and they found that the BB could not work for them to try to deter further gold hits - the converse happened - they were dissuaded from using the BB. People lobbied for PvP protection. Mechanics within the game could not protect them, they asked for a new mechanic that would. They got it, after a long period of argument.

 

Gold was also protected. PvP players lost targets for gold, and for XP loss. Their game shrank further - as a consequence, I believe, of their dominance of the BB. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

Of course the gold protection element has been removed, but as billybob pointed out to me - there are many more gold sinks in the game now, many more ways to hide gold. PvP players have found the pickings thinner, apparently. But it is hard to trust a gold thief when he tells you he can't find gold anymore.

 

It is also hard now to accept that 'risk' is the reason we should keep the current system. PvP players have acted rationally to reduce risk and maximise benefit to themselves on every front.

 

Ironically by reducing risk so drastically, they also lost benefit as a new mechanic was introduced that protected their potential targets' gold for a long time. And of course being hit for gold teaches players pretty quickly to hide it - another way in which PvP is self-defeating - you hit for gold, folk hide it, you complain there is less gold going around - why is that a surprise?

 

I would argue that the only area in which PvP players have not acted rationally is in their defence of PvP. If you have reduced risk on every front and you know you are getting punished less often and less heavily than you used to, it is a little rich/disingenuous/dishonest to keep claiming you are at "constant risk" of losing 5. You are at constant very low probability of losing 5 is closer to the truth. And if you do lose 5 you make sure everyone that dropped you loses 5 also. The other side loses more, every time. What is the proof of this? The dead BB and the disinterest of the rest of the game population in your game style is a pretty strong indication. The fact that PvP protection was clamoured for as the Bb could not provide a balanced system of punishment for those who choose to hit other players for gold. Can't give you proof - but those things are a pretty firm foundation for my argument.

 

We have to rely on your word that you are honourable, that when someone hits back, they won't be counter bountied. Some PvP players may accept a hit back and be cool with it. Others will CB. Bad apples - maybe, or maybe just rational actors - they know that over time if the enemy keeps losing 5 for every hit via CB, they will go away and leave the field to the PvP player. A clear advantage that a rational actor would seek. The person who hits back cannot know in advance if they will be applauded for the hit, or CB'd for it. A few CB's they'll stop trusting the propaganda that PvP players don't mind being hit back - even if some genuinely believe that - those that CB destroy the perception on the part of PvE players.

 

I don't want to take away your freedom to hit without warning and when it suits you.

 

I do want to take away the myth of risk and replace it with real risk.

 

Rules that are clear and apply to all.

 

One last time.

 

Arguing that there should be 'risk' for every hit, means risk of counter bounty. If arguing 'risk' for every hit meant allowing someone to hit back - well that possibility exists without CB being in the game. CB has been used for years by PvP players and guilds to dominate and drive other players off the BB. CB reduces real risk to PvP players, and increases it for those not in the PvP club. The result is one dead BB, ladies and gents. CB is not risky to PvP players, it is a weapon and it is protection for you.

 

Allowing a BH to be CB minimises risk to the player who did the original gold hit. It protects the aggressor. This system has killed the board and is killing PvP's long term survivability.

 

Using 'risk' as a defence for the current system is unrealistic when the risk is so one sided.




#860972 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 08 April 2014 - 00:29

Hello Kedyn I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

I'm going to try to demonstrate here why counter bounties have over the years caused the BB to wither. There is no blame or finger pointing here - I think the fundamental nature of counter bounty causes this, and it causes less activity even for those who honourably and effectively use it.

 

Counter bounty is vendetta. Someone hit you - you hit them back. Except a counter bounty lets you call on your friends and family to help you.

 

A player gets hit for gold. He talks to his guildies and they agree to do a delevel party. He posts the bounty and the delevel party of say 4 players in his guild knock the gold hitter down 5 levels.

 

The gold hitter counter bounties all 4 players in the delevel party. Friends in his guild and allies in other like minded guilds smack everyone in the original delevel party down 5. Say 20 hitters.

 

The guild of the original player is faced with a choice - can they counterbounty 20 players and delevel them all - do they have enough members and allies prepared to do that? They realise they do not.

 

The guild of the person who was originally attacked cedes the field to the team of the person who did the gold hit.

 

That guild now knows not to mess with gold hitters from X guild, as they cannot keep up in a counter bounty bonanza. They withdraw from PvP against those people.

 

The guild that supported their hitter because he got delevelled feels good that they had their man's back. They may or may not notice that they get bountied less often and don't get delevelled by that guild anymore. Or they do notice and realise they have a safer option to attack here and there for gold.

 

This happens with groups of players not for weeks or months, but years.

 

Counter bounty promotes a last man standing environment, and rewards teams of players who like PvP and who are prepared to outlast their opponents in a counter bounty bonanza.

 

The problem is it doesn't take too many counter bounty bonanza losses to convince folk not to try.

 

If bounty hunters get regularly counter bountied and keep losing levels, it becomes pointless for them to continue bounty hunting - they drop out. Again the person who originally did the gold hit counter bounties someone who is taking their bounty. For a good reason or not, the bounty hunter learns it is not worth his time to hit that person, or his friends.

 

This goes on for months and years.

 

The use of counter bounty as a method of standing up for your man who gets posted to the BB causes fewer and fewer people to try to clear bounties, and fewer and fewer people to post bounties in the first place, as fewer bounties get cleared, and for less damage, as to avoid being hit Bounty hunters start clearing with 10 stam hits. Even then they sometimes get counter bountied.

 

The people who still PvP and counter bounty have fewer and fewer opponents on the board.

 

Does that seem familiar? Does that not describe the BB now - empty?

 

Now this is simply a result of using the counter bounty as a way of always standing by your guildmate - because hitting for gold is legal in the game, and you want to let other players and guilds know that any PvP activity against you and yours will be fully prosecuted. This is fine - but it has the result of causing unsustainable losses on the part of those trying to take bounties, and in the end has the happy side effect of minimising losses on the side of those who do the initial gold hit.

 

The result is fewer and fewer people do initiate PvP activity against you - you win the war. At the cost of active PvP conflict.

 

This is my theory of why counter bounty does no favours to the PvP community ultimately as it drives out other players and makes your community smaller. Those who remain are strong and well organised, but fewer than even they were a few years ago as instead of being able to bounty and see some retribution had without risk of counter bounties escalating the conflict beyond their ability to sustain it, the rest of the community seeks other methods of protection from PVP - ways to hide their gold and ways to buy immunity from being hit. This results in less gold being available to the original gold hitters. Nobody is winning anymore.

 

Does that sound familiar to you, looking at the history of the game?

 

As I have said before - the PvP community's own excellence and dominance has counted against it in the end - they have neutralised opposition on the board, and caused the rest of the community to find ways of insulating themselves from PvP as they cannot compete on the BB.

 

Removing counter bounty allows more people to re-enter the system.

 

If people take advantage of bounty hunter immunity to be immature, to send taunting messages and generally be idiots as they think it is a free pass - report them, and use the ignore function. You don't have to let people talk smack to you, you can block them. Counter bounty is not meant as a way to crush speech. Keeping it for that purpose is not sufficient I think - given its long term negative effect on PvP as I see it.

 

PvP protection did not get lobbied for by accident - know what I'm saying??






Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: